God Is Greater Than Can Be Conceived..Thoughts/Opinions

[Chrishaune]

It's nice to see the new testament god cleaned up his act though, because that old testament god was a real a$$hole.

Everything God does is for His reasons.......It was Him dealing with the Israelites in the Old Testament that has a lot of people confused. He did what He did to set up His coming in the New Testament. A lot of times when you see the large number of deaths was when other groups came against what He was trying to do with the people that He chose, the Israelites. He even allowed large numbers of Israelites to die because they were not following the laws He set before them. It's not like He didn't give people warning before He allowed them to die. But when you choose to not pay attention to what He said, then things are allowed to happen. It's not so much Him doing things, it's Him taking back his protection of your life and allowing the one who really wants to kill you, do it. He let's you choose the way you want to go, but when He takes back His protection you can be sure that Satan will come through and kill you.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Therefore, God, you are not only that than which a greater cannot be conceived: you are also something greater than can be conceived. It is possible to conceive that there is something of this sort. And, if you are not this thing, it is possible to conceive of something greater than you- which is impossible?

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

Thoughts?

if this god is greater than you can imagine, why do you imagine it?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

God is love. Love can't be understood.

It can actually.

Its a combination of physiological responses to a narrow set of stimuli.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

What I find most amazing about God, is He is staring at the past, present, and future all at once. Mind blown...

There is no such thing as "time"

I wish you kids paid attention to class.

Theres no such thing as "the past"

 

[⠝⠕⠏⠑]

Therefore, God, you are not only that than which a greater cannot be conceived: you are also something greater than can be conceived. It is possible to conceive that there is something of this sort. And, if you are not this thing, it is possible to conceive of something greater than you- which is impossible?

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

Thoughts?

Let me find out u on that "St. Anselm a priori ontological apologetics" time!!! I used his definition of God in my undergrad thesis for religious studies. The "er" is the most important aspect of his argument IMO.

 

[HoloGraphic]

Only God can judge me.

that nikka he ain't my daddy

And if he was, I got my sense of humor from him

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Everything God does is for His reasons.......It was Him dealing with the Israelites in the Old Testament that has a lot of people confused. He did what He did to set up His coming in the New Testament. A lot of times when you see the large number of deaths was when other groups came against what He was trying to do with the people that He chose, the Israelites. He even allowed large numbers of Israelites to die because they were not following the laws He set before them. It's not like He didn't give people warning before He allowed them to die. But when you choose to not pay attention to what He said, then things are allowed to happen. It's not so much Him doing things, it's Him taking back his protection of your life and allowing the one who really wants to kill you, do it. He let's you choose the way you want to go, but when He takes back His protection you can be sure that Satan will come through and kill you.

You know I wrote up a long follow up for this, but then I realized it would be a waste of time. You calling a god a HE is pretty telling of how deep in you are. We couldn't begin to understand what a god is, but if there is one I can promise you it isn't a human.

There's a better chance of a god looking like this without just changing up it's image

then there is for it to look like any of us. The universe is just way to fukking big for that.

 

[the cac mamba]

History= His Story fam. God has no reason to answer to you or me. So whether He continues to show his self in various ways or one- who are we to question it? I hope you're standing on the right side when its your time to see Him face-to-face and not caught up fishing for daps.

i thought we were the people who had to follow certain rules to get into heaven

unless the rules aint shyt

 

[Chrishaune]

You know I wrote up a long follow up for this, but then I realized it would be a waste of time. You calling a god a HE is pretty telling of how deep in you are. We couldn't begin to understand what a god is, but if there is one I can promise you it isn't a human.

I didn't call Him human.....It uses the term "He" in the Bible when refering to Him. It says He made man after His own image also. He's not human, but man does look similar to God in form.

 

[klutch2381]

It's not Anselm. It's Descartes' clear and distinct ideas vis-a-vis the "trademark argument." You should've posted this in the philosopher's guild. You would've gotten a better response @darius19 . I disagree with Descartes wholly, but if you actually understand the subtlety of what he's saying (i.e., existence being a necessary property of God, and how Descartes gets there), you'll see it's very clever.

 

[klutch2381]

Kant da gawd had a damning criticism of this ontological proof and that was basically all there was for that.

"Descartes had argued that God had existence in the same way as a triangle has three sides. Kant would agree, if you had a triangle then you did indeed have an object with three sides. But if you do not have the triangle, you have neither its three angles or its three sides. If you accept that there is a God, it is logical to accept also that His existence is necessary. But you don’t have to accept that there is a God."

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

god is a being greater than humanity. OF COURSE we dont understand him

Where'd you get your sig from? I tried to read Tender is the Night, but had to put that trash down after the first 10 chapters

 

[Trill McClay]

i thought we were the people who had to follow certain rules to get into heaven

unless the rules aint shyt

In the Old Testament that was the case, following rules (the 10 Commandments) was a justification of faith. However, when the new covenant was fulfilled in the New Testament (birth of Jesus Christ) the commandments became obsolete. Instead of living by a set of laws we were then allowed to live by the grace and mercy of God. By living this way we could no longer boast of our own merits, but only of the love of God which saves us. I'll go into more detail later though fam. I'm typing on my phone.

 

[⠝⠕⠏⠑]

It's not Anselm. It's Descartes' clear and distinct ideas vis-a-vis the "trademark argument." You should've posted this in the philosopher's guild. You would've gotten a better response @darius19 . I disagree with Descartes wholly, but if you actually understand the subtlety of what he's saying (i.e., existence being a necessary property of God, and how Descartes gets there), you'll see it's very clever.

St. Anselm started this trend of a priori Christian apologetics where they were arguing for the existence of God purely based off reasoning alone. Other early theologians employed a posteriori apologetics such as the teleological argument for God's existence, or God as the first mover...(is that Aquinas? It's been a while...)

Anyhoo Descartes came thru later and expanded on the original.
Anselm a definition was "God is that which nothing greater can be thought." And ur right. It is pretty clever to postulate that if you can think about a being or even imagine such a being (even if only to refuse its existence,) by very definition of what it is (greater) something even better surpasses our thoughts in the realm of reality not just limited by the mental realm.

 

[klutch2381]

St. Anselm started this trend of a priori Christian apologetics where they were arguing for the existence of God purely based off reasoning alone. Other early theologians employed a posteriori apologetics such as the teleological argument for God's existence, or God as the first mover...(is that Aquinas? It's been a while...)

Anyhoo Descartes came thru later and expanded on the original.
Anselm a definition was "God is that which nothing greater can be thought." And ur right. It is pretty clever to postulate that if you can think about a being or even imagine such a being (even if only to refuse its existence,) by very definition of what it is (greater) something even better surpasses our thoughts in the realm of reality not just limited by the mental realm.

Yeah, I know that.

I was saying this particular ontological proof isn't Anslem, but specifically an amended version posited by Descartes later. Anslem's version is a little "cleaner," but still critically flawed. All ontological are flawed in much the same way, but that's another conversation.

Philosophy was one of my majors.

The prime mover/cosmological argument from Aquinas is essentially Aristotelian thinking (e.g., unmoved mover), but I can't blame him from paying homage to the GOAT philosopher.